Controversial opinions about Bond films

1497498500502503707

Comments

  • edited January 2019 Posts: 385
    It is a delightful sequence. I always felt Moore was at his best in full "IDGAF" mode, and it's one reason I've warmed to Octopussy - he spends most of the film that way.

    Roger had good company in his films, didn't he? :-D

    Indeed, I'd say only Golden Gun is a disappointment. Moonraker at least has the agent in Brazil to make up for Goodhead, and View has the pilot of HMS Love Boat.


    Sigh...

    Octopussy-hp-10Aug15_rex_b.jpg
  • Posts: 17,753
    bondjames wrote: »
    Roger had good company in his films, didn't he? :-D
    Definitely. Highlights of his films as far as I'm concerned.

    No doubt!
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 2,917
    jobo wrote: »
    That car chase is, as you said, there for the Aston to 'trut it's stuff', not James Bond. For me that is the wrong way around.

    You know Bond is the protagonist of the rest of the movie, right? And that he's the one controlling the car?
    And mind you, saying the film 'vastly improves' on the book because it adds an action scene is a bit cheap! Which Bond film doesn't?

    The film adds an action sequence that fleshes out the car Fleming introduced and does far more with it than he did--hence the fact that Bond films 50 years later are still paying homage to it. It also sets up Bond's capture and defeat by Goldfinger in a more powerful and immediate way than by simply having Oddjob apprehend him--the fact that Goldfinger manages to wreck the glorious Aston shows the audience he means business. Adding action that accentuates the drama and imagery of the original novel is always an improvement. Very few Bond films have done so as well as GF. By contrast, the inserted helicopter/boat chase in FRWL is just there because the filmmakers knew the book was short on explosions.
    what we are debating is the original statement that Goldfinger could be considered the weakest of the 60's. You said you couldn't fathom why, well, we have tried to explain

    And I have not found those explanations convincing.
    For me DN, FRWL and OHMSS are the crown jewels of the series...However, with Goldfinger, I find that after the very strong 1st and 2nd act, I struggle more to find the 3rd and 4th enjoyable. The locations and imagery are also elements where the Kentucky section of Goldfinger comes up very short in comparison to TB and YOLT

    The 60s films are certainly a strong lot, but GF is a more assured piece of film-making than DN, contains more thrills than FRWL, and has more iconic moments than OHMSS (though I still consider OHMSS the best Bond film). The Kentucky section of GF happens to contain the assault on Fort Knox and fight in the cathedral of gold--that certainly does not come short against the last act of TB (an interminable underwater ballet) or YOLT (a bloated semi-retread of Goldfinger's climax--Bond racing against the doomsday clock and needing to fight a henchman before he can disable the villain's device while armies clash in the background).
  • Posts: 17,753
    MooreFun wrote: »
    Roger had good company in his films, didn't he? :-D

    Indeed, I'd say only Golden Gun is a disappointment. Moonraker at least has the agent in Brazil to make up for Goodhead, and View has the pilot of HMS Love Boat.


    Sigh...

    Octopussy-hp-10Aug15_rex_b.jpg

    Good point re. TMWTGG. Do like Maud Adams though, but she got to play a Bond girl again in OP – along with plenty others, as the above picture shows!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,112
    I’ve always liked TMWTGG. The locations, the sets, the villains, the girls, the score and the cat-and-mouse plot.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 17,753
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I’ve always liked TMWTGG. The locations, the sets, the villains, the girls, the score and the cat-and-mouse plot.

    Absolutely agree. Some elements could definitely have been better, but that doesn't keep me from being entertained throughout.
  • Posts: 385
    I should clarify - I'm only disappointed in the Bond girls for TMWTGG. I love the film overall, and to keep in the spirit of the thread, that includes the score and theme track. :D
  • Posts: 1,917
    Revelator wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Bond being so virile he turns a woman who was "immune" is too much and when Fiona Volpe references it in TB it makes it all the more apparent.

    And yet in multiple Bond films women fall into his arms in a matter of seconds. Bond is and always has been a fantasy figure of masculinity. His wrestling match with Pussy is as good a way of bonding with her as any, since she's plainly a tough cookie and has less regard for charm than strength and toughness, which Bond ultimately demonstrates. As for Fiona, she's meant to stay evil throughout the film, which is probably why we never see Bond make an effort to convince her to switch sides.

    Whatever do you mean? Bond knows she works for SPECTRE and his bedding her is his attempt to win her to his side, especially since he's doing everything he can while working against the clock to find the bombs, not just getting in a dalliance, which is why she makes the cutting remark that clearly bruises his ego and puts him in immediate danger.

    Besides, she's an original character with no book roots, an audience seeing it for the first time would have no reference as to her intentions as they would've with Pussy.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 2,917
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Whatever do you mean? Bond knows she works for SPECTRE and his bedding her is his attempt to win her to his side, especially since he's doing everything he can while working against the clock to find the bombs, not just getting in a dalliance, which is why she makes the cutting remark that clearly bruises his ego and puts him in immediate danger.

    I mean that the filmmakers obviously intended that Fiona would stay evil, since she's a femme fatale (a character stereotype audiences would be familiar with) and therefore evil and irredeemable. She's the disposable bad girl and Domino is the consolation prize good girl (there was a similar pattern in Dr. No with Miss Taro and Honey). And whereas Bond tells Pussy that Goldfinger is mad and will kill thousands, he doesn't even bother telling Fiona about the evils of Spectre. He sleeps with her because she's there.

    There's also a familiar genre expectation at work: truly evil characters tend to get punished in genre fiction. So evil Bond girls generally aren't redeemed. In AVTAK Mayday--who has already shown herself as a repeat murderer--switches sides only because Zorin betrayed her, not because she had sex with a geriatric Roger Moore. Fiona is also a murderer, whereas Pussy is a pilot.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Revelator wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    That car chase is, as you said, there for the Aston to 'trut it's stuff', not James Bond. For me that is the wrong way around.

    You know Bond is the protagonist of the rest of the movie, right? And that he's the one controlling the car?
    And mind you, saying the film 'vastly improves' on the book because it adds an action scene is a bit cheap! Which Bond film doesn't?

    The film adds an action sequence that fleshes out the car Fleming introduced and does far more with it than he did--hence the fact that Bond films 50 years later are still paying homage to it. It also sets up Bond's capture and defeat by Goldfinger in a more powerful and immediate way than by simply having Oddjob apprehend him--the fact that Goldfinger manages to wreck the glorious Aston shows the audience he means business. Adding action that accentuates the drama and imagery of the original novel is always an improvement. Very few Bond films have done so as well as GF. By contrast, the inserted helicopter/boat chase in FRWL is just there because the filmmakers knew the book was short on explosions.
    what we are debating is the original statement that Goldfinger could be considered the weakest of the 60's. You said you couldn't fathom why, well, we have tried to explain

    And I have not found those explanations convincing.
    For me DN, FRWL and OHMSS are the crown jewels of the series...However, with Goldfinger, I find that after the very strong 1st and 2nd act, I struggle more to find the 3rd and 4th enjoyable. The locations and imagery are also elements where the Kentucky section of Goldfinger comes up very short in comparison to TB and YOLT

    The 60s films are certainly a strong lot, but GF is a more assured piece of film-making than DN, contains more thrills than FRWL, and has more iconic moments than OHMSS (though I still consider OHMSS the best Bond film). The Kentucky section of GF happens to contain the assault on Fort Knox and fight in the cathedral of gold--that certainly does not come short against the last act of TB (an interminable underwater ballet) or YOLT (a bloated semi-retread of Goldfinger's climax--Bond racing against the doomsday clock and needing to fight a henchman before he can disable the villain's device while armies clash in the background).


    Of all the quirky aspects of Bond fandom, the almost religious cult worshipping of the DB5 is one of the things I'll never understand. The car does have a classic look to it (especially on Swiss alpine roads) and is the kind of vehicle you expect a sophisticated character like James Bond would drive. My interest With it however ends there. Wether it has oil spill, machine guns or a cartoonish Walt Disney ejector seat I couldn't care less about, even if I was compelled to try! For me that car chase is a pretty mundane affair as a consequence. A good action scene should have Bond demonstrate some capabilities and wit. I am much more interested in seeing him outsmart his opponents than seeing him casually push buttons. 'Lazy' is reaally not an innapropriate way of describing it.

    It is obvious none of us will be able to convince the other, as our personal opinions and tastes don't allign. Your line of reasoning takes a lot for granted: That I should obviously find said scene tense and suspensefull, that find certain elements more iconic than thoset in OHMSS, that I find 'the cathedral of gold' to be a mesmerizing visual, that I obviously bow to the alter of the "glorious Aston's" incredible gadgets... I don't, and therefor your points are in no way convincing to me.
  • Posts: 15,114
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 19,339
    SF used the DB5 very well,it actually added to the story.

    1.You can plainly see it's Bond own car that he won in CR.
    2.The drive to Skyfall is beautifully shot,showing the car in all its glory,as is the scene with the silent stealth of Silva's men walking all around it to the house.
    3.Bond uses the machine gun to make it a fairer playing field against Silva's first wave of men.
    4.Silva knows what the car means to Bond,hence after the helicopter shoots it to pieces,he looks straight back to the house,smiling,looking for a reaction from Bond.
    5.Bond's face shows what the car means to him,pure anger,and stimulates him to work even harder with the gas cannisters .

    This is another reason why SP gets on my bloody nerves,not only does it say Silva is part of SPECTRE,which is Mod Edit,he worked for himself,you can see that in the scene with Bond on the island,but also Q mentions about bringing the DB5 back in one piece,not bring back one piece.

    The car was never MI6's property in SP,you can tell it's Bonds own car,ffs.

    SP really tries to damage SF's excellent reputation,but its such a bad film it doesn't succeed.
  • Posts: 385
    The car in CR was left hand drive. The car in Skyfall is right hand drive. Either we’re meant to believe Bond paid for a very expensive conversion, it’s a different car entirely, or Eon couldn’t be bothered to get the details right
  • Posts: 19,339
    MooreFun wrote: »
    The car in CR was left hand drive. The car in Skyfall is right hand drive. Either we’re meant to believe Bond paid for a very expensive conversion, it’s a different car entirely, or Eon couldn’t be bothered to get the details right

    Probably this option.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    That is why I find the joke with the Lotus Esprit in FYEO so brilliant as is the car chase in that movie,it steps away form the gadget laden cars for a lovely drive in the country. (it is one of the more original car-chases in the franchise.
  • Posts: 7,507
    SaintMark wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    That is why I find the joke with the Lotus Esprit in FYEO so brilliant as is the car chase in that movie,it steps away form the gadget laden cars for a lovely drive in the country. (it is one of the more original car-chases in the franchise.


    Agree. I would go as far as saying it is the best car chase in Bond.
  • Posts: 17,753
    e36e3-roger_moore_jamesbondreview-filminspector-com_1.gif

    Totally agree. It's no doubt my favourite car chase of the franchise as well. It's fun, exciting, and required some skill by Bond himself as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I didn't like the FYEO chase growing up, but these days it's one of my favourites as well. I saw TSWLM first and so I expected some cool gadgets when I initially saw the car in FYEO. When it blew up, young me was quite disappointed. Now I find it quite refreshing and creatively done too. The same thing goes for the other gadgets during the Rog era. They switched things up from film to film. E.g. I don't remember a preponderance of watch gadgetry for instance (it was there, but not consecutively).

    This is a primary reason I'd rather not see the DB5 for a few films, and certainly not during Bond #007's run.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    If i ever win the lottery its a 1963 silver DB5 for me.

    I love the bloody thing!
  • edited January 2019 Posts: 2,917
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    If i ever win the lottery its a 1963 silver DB5 for me.

    I love the bloody thing!
    $3.5m will get you a 2020 version sanctioned by EON no less.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/msolomon/2018/08/21/aston-martin-is-remaking-the-classic-james-bond-goldfinger-db5/#7b4399e74378
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.

    And also one of the most influential films ever made.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.
    Formula is a tricky thing. You've got to know what you're doing imho and reflect the essence of what you're trying to capture, without making it seem too deliberately reflective of the past. That's one of my main hopes for the future of the series - that they surprise me and don't give me that awful 'been there, done that better before' feeling.

    The DB5's use in SF was well done in my opinion (despite the obvious wankery element). The incorporation of the car's gadgetry seemed organic to the plot. The DB10's in SP on the other hand reeked of amateur hour to me. Too predictable.
  • Posts: 15,114
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.

    That's why I'd rather have old gadgets (if slightly modernised) reused in new ways, than brand new far fetched gadgets. I'd love to see the briefcase again as well. And SPECTRE's gadgets as well.
  • Posts: 7,507
    bondjames wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I love the DB5, but I do think gadgets laden cars have been overused in Bond movies. I agree that Bond should not be just a guy pushing buttons. What I loved about the DB5 in GF is that ultimately it fails him. In SF, it's sparingly used, so I quite liked it too.

    Agreed on all points. The overuse of gadget cars is a tribute to the influence of GF, though in this case the influence hasn't been always for the best, since most attempts to recreate the winning formula come off as too formulaic. But for better and worse GF set the template of the series and remains the "gold standard Bond," as a 2014 article in the Boston Globe put it.
    Formula is a tricky thing. You've got to know what you're doing imho and reflect the essence of what you're trying to capture, without making it seem too deliberately reflective of the past. That's one of my main hopes for the future of the series - that they surprise me and don't give me that awful 'been there, done that better before' feeling.

    The DB5's use in SF was well done in my opinion (despite the obvious wankery element). The incorporation of the car's gadgetry seemed organic to the plot. The DB10's in SP on the other hand reeked of amateur hour to me. Too predictable.


    It is a tricky balance. There sure is a mayhem on here with complaints when certain formulaic traits we have come to expect are scrapped. (The gunbarrel is a great example). But I definitely agree with you. Gadget laden cars in particular is something I can live without. On the contrary I would prefer not to see them at all.
  • Posts: 15,114
    I'd also rather not see gadget laden cars. But To be honest, most of them save the DB5 left me underwhelmed at best. I certainly don't want another submarine one, or another invisible one, or even a remote control one.
  • Posts: 385
    I prefer my Bond escapist, so the Lotus and the 750iL were fun to see. Likewise, I enjoy the 2CV chase.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    MooreFun wrote: »
    The car in CR was left hand drive. The car in Skyfall is right hand drive. Either we’re meant to believe Bond paid for a very expensive conversion, it’s a different car entirely, or Eon couldn’t be bothered to get the details right

    Probably this option.

    Yes. Only geeks here notice such things.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,996
    bondjames wrote: »
    If i ever win the lottery its a 1963 silver DB5 for me.

    I love the bloody thing!
    $3.5m will get you a 2020 version sanctioned by EON no less.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/msolomon/2018/08/21/aston-martin-is-remaking-the-classic-james-bond-goldfinger-db5/#7b4399e74378

    According to Aston Martin these new cars won't be 'road legal'

    Not spending $3.5m on a car to just look at it!!!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    If i ever win the lottery its a 1963 silver DB5 for me.

    I love the bloody thing!
    $3.5m will get you a 2020 version sanctioned by EON no less.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/msolomon/2018/08/21/aston-martin-is-remaking-the-classic-james-bond-goldfinger-db5/#7b4399e74378

    According to Aston Martin these new cars won't be 'road legal'

    Not spending $3.5m on a car to just look at it!!!
    Good point. I suppose something which accurately reflects the original design would automatically be non compliant with today's stringent safety standards. Shame.
Sign In or Register to comment.